PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           18 July 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041290

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

3.  The applicant states that they were on patrol and they were verbally awarded the CIB.  He provides no supporting evidence.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the Army on 12 October 1965.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13A (Field Artillery Basic).  

5.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam on 13 February 1967.  He was assigned to Service Battery, 1st Howitzer Battalion, 92d Artillery and performed duties as a 13A10 ammunition specialist and 13B40 ammunition section chief.  He departed Vietnam on 28 September 1967 and was released from active duty on 1 October 1967 after completing 1 year, 11 months and 20 days of creditable active service. His DA Form 20, Personnel Qualification Record, shows his conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his period of service as “excellent.”

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards.  In pertinent part, it states that the CIB was established during World War II to provide special recognition of the unique role of the Army infantryman, the only soldier whose daily mission is to close with and destroy the enemy and to seize and hold terrain.  The badge was intended as an inducement for individuals to join the infantry while serving as a morale booster for infantrymen.  In developing the CIB, the War Department did not dismiss or ignore the contributions of other branches.  Their vital contributions to the overall war effort were noted, but it was decided that other awards and decorations were sufficient to recognize their contributions.  From the beginning, Army leadership have taken care to retain the badge for the unique purpose for which it was established.  There are basically three requirements for award of the CIB.  The soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and must actively participate in such ground combat.  

7.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It stated that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.  At the time, a soldier’s conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as “excellent” for the entire period of qualifying service.

8.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows the 1st Battalion, 92d Artillery was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm for the period 1 August 1965 through 16 August 1971.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that while the applicant held a combat MOS, it was not an infantry MOS.  While he certainly performed combat duties, those duties do not qualify him for award of the CIB.  The Board does not denigrate the valuable services he performed during combat situations.  Many individuals and commanders were probably not aware of the strict requirements for award of the CIB.

2.  The evidence of record does show that the applicant met the criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and that his unit was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm for a period of time he was assigned to the unit.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 12 October 1965 through 1 October 1967.

2.  That the applicant’s DD Form 214, Report of Transfer or Discharge, for the period ending 1 October 1967 be corrected to add the Army Good Conduct Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm.

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__gdp___  __eb____  __mvt___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			George D. Paxson
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041290	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000718	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0111	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.